Kerala High Court
Lalithamma vs Sasidharan on 3 January, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 13TH POUSHA, 1945
OP(C) NO. 1938 OF 2019
IN O.S. NO.66/2001 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY
PETITIONER/PLAINTIFFS:
LALITHAMMA
AGED 72 YEARS, D/O. PANKAJAKSHI, (FROM CHITTETHU
PUTHENVEETTIL), PADIKKATHARA VEEDU, VARAVILA POST,
(VIA) VAVVAKKAVU, CLAPPANA, KARUNAGAPPALLY.
BY ADV B.KRISHNA MANI
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 SASIDHARAN
S/O. SREENIVASAN, KACHIKALATHIL(KARANGAIL) VEEDU,
CHITTOOR, PANMANA VILLAGE, PANMANA P.O., CHAVARA,
KARUNAGAPPALLY-691583.
2 MEERA,
W/O. KAMALAHASAN, KARIMPLAYIL(MEERA BHAVANAM),
CHITTOOR, PANMANA VILLAGE, PANMANA P.O., CHAVARA,
KARUNAGAPPALLY-691583.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.01.2024,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
O.P.(C).NO.1938 of 2019
..2..
J U D G M E N T
Dated, this the 03rd day of January, 2024
The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.
No.66/2001, pending before the Munsiff's Court,
Karunagappally. The suit is one for declaration
of title, as also, for recovery of possession.
The suit was decreed ex-parte earlier. Challenging
the ex-parte decree, an appeal was filed and the
matter was ultimately concluded by Ext.P2 judgment
in R.S.A. No.940/2010. The ex-parte judgment and
decree were set aside and the matter was remitted
to the court below for fresh disposal, in
accordance with law. There is a direction to
permit the plaintiff to amend the suit for
incorporating a prayer for recovery of possession,
with a further liberty granted to take out a fresh
Commission in respect of the properties of the
plaintiff and the defendants, which has to be
O.P.(C).NO.1938 of 2019
..3..
measured in accordance with the title, based on
old survey, as well as re-survey. After remand,
the property was measured and Ext.P4 report and
plan was submitted before the court. The
petitioner/plaintiff filed Ext.P5 application to
set aside Ext.P4 report and plan. She also
preferred Ext.P6 application to remit Ext.P4
report to the Commissioner for rectifying the
so-called mistakes in the report and the plan. By
the impugned Ext.P7 order, Ext.P5 application is
seen dismissed, holding that the property has been
measured on the basis of the old survey plan,
correlation plan, re-survey plan and title deed
and that merely because the extent as mentioned in
the title deed is not reported in Ext.P4 plan,
Ext.P4 report cannot be interfered with.
2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner,
who contends that the learned Munsiff had
seriously erred in observing that no objection to
the Commissioner's report is filed. Ext.P5
O.P.(C).NO.1938 of 2019
..4..
specifically refers to the fact that the
petitioner/plaintiff has got objection to the
Commission report, in support of which Ext.P5
affidavit is filed. According to the learned
counsel, a perusal of Ext.P6 would also indicate
that Ext.P4 report and plan was objected to by the
petitioner/plaintiff. Learned counsel further
pointed out that there is substantial reduction in
the extent of the property, going by Ext.P4 report
and plan, vis-a-vis the extent shown in the title
deed. According to the learned counsel, Ext.P4
plan would demolish the plaintiff's case.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, this Court finds little merit in
the challenge made to Ext.P7 impugned order. As
rightly taken note of by the learned Munsiff, the
measurement has been done in accord with Ext.P2
judgment, which fact is available in paragraph
No.6 of Ext.P4 report. It is clear that the
measurement has been done based on the partition
O.P.(C).NO.1938 of 2019
..5..
deed/title deed, the old survey sketch, the
re-survey sketch and the correlation plan.
A perusal of paragraph No.7 would indicate that
the Commissioner had identified the survey stones
and had arrived at a conclusion that the survey
stones are found located at the appropriate place,
as confirmed by the measurements in the survey
plan. Thus, the petitioner could not point out any
specific error in the method or manner in which
the properties were measured, culminating in
Ext.P4 report and plan. Apart from pointing out
that there is a reduction in the extent of the
petitioner's property in Ext.P4 plan, when
compared to the extent shown in the title deed,
the petitioner could not assail the report on any
other count. So long as the property has been
measured in accord with Ext.P2 judgment and
inasmuch as no specific defect as regards the
measurement could be pointed out, Ext.P4 report
and plan is not liable to be interfered with, only
for the reason that the extent of the property
O.P.(C).NO.1938 of 2019
..6..
diminishes when compared to the extent shown in
the title deed. The challenge to Ext.P4 report and
plan fails, Ext.P7 order is only to be sustained
and it is so done.
The Original Petition fails and the same is
dismissed.
Sd/-
C. JAYACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Skk//03.01.2024
O.P.(C).NO.1938 of 2019
..7..
APPENDIX OF OP(C) NO.1938/2019
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT, O.S.NO.66/2001
BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT,
KARUNAGAPPALLY DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
27/11/2018 IN R.S.A.940/2010 BEFORE THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
7/1/2019 IN O.S.NO.66/2001 BEFORE THE
MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPLLY.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT AND PLAN DATED
19/1/2019 OF THE COMMISSIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
4/7/2019 IN OS.NO.66/2001 BEFORE THE
MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
13/06/2019 IN O.S. NO.66/2001 BEFORE
THE MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9/7/2019
IN IA NO.1405/2019 IN O.S NO.66/2001
BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT,
KARUNAGAPPALLY.
